andrel wrote:
> On 3-2-2009 23:07, Darren New wrote:
>> andrel wrote:
>>> We know that God did survive,
>>
>> Do we?
> well 'In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.' implies 
> that He was there before the big bang. He is still here, so He survived. 
> (All from the perspective of someone that believes God exists of course).
Interestingly, as someone pointed out, there is never any mention of God 
"making" the sea, just breathing on one that was already there, as a 
means of "starting" the whole mess... So, not much of a "all powerful" 
god, if he had to start with something that was already there...

>>
>>> so why not another form of life?
>>
>> Because God isn't a form of life?
> 
> That is an interesting position.
> 
Technically true though. Life implies certain properties. With the 
possible exception of "reproduction", which even crystals can manage.., 
its a bit unclear what "life processes" he has, which qualifies him as a 
"life form". But, maybe that is being a bit too nit picky. We are 
talking about something you can't provide non-self referencing evidence 
for "reproducing" either.

>>> Did I see a slight move in position from you trying to prove that 
>>> life must have started sometime after the universe was created to 
>>> either that or macroevolution must exist?
>>
>> Errr, no. Unless you want to believe that all species of life on Earth 
>> actually existed within moments of the Big Bang, back when the 
>> universe was literally too small to hole even a single Elephant, then 
>> macroevolution must have occurred if God created all life at the start 
>> of the universe.
> 
> I was merely pointing out that you now have two options. Either life 
> always existed and we have macroevolution or life was created later and 
> we may not have that. And that that is a problematic position. Not 
> because of the people with a scientific background that agree with your 
> POV but for the others that you call clueless but are in fact very 
> clever in breaking all rules of a normal discussion.
> 
How about this rule. Before arguing that "macro-evolution", a term 
"entirely" invented by creationists, is invalid, present a "plausible" 
reason why so called micro-evolution "cannot" lead to the former, which 
isn't based on, "Well, I just don't believe it!" So far, the best anyone 
can come up with is the embarrassment of "Irreducible Complexity", which 
has been disproved by both "explanations" for earlier transitions, 
numerous examples of transitions, and even ridiculously simple computer 
programs, which show that its not just possible, but under some 
conditions, inevitable that such "irreducible" results come about. Its 
really simple, really. You have something that does something 2+2=4, you 
copy it, 2+2=42+2=4, you "tweak" it, 2+2=42+2=5, which still works, 
because there are two copies. You have a deletion 2+2=4+2=5, it still 
"works", since the original is still there. Then you have a "mutation", 
2+2=4+1=5, now you have a whole "new" function, which partly does what 
the prior one did, but also now does something completely different 
(presuming here that any "valid" = is a "function". Yet, its now 
"irreducible", since any "change" to any part will either kill the 
"original" function, or the "new" function. In the program I saw, which 
was insanely simple, irreducibility could happen within as "little" as 
five changes, where no individual "change" was detrimental to the 
"survival" of the artificial animal, based on the criteria given.

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message